Quote of the Month – Nature disses skeptics

I already have a quote of the week, but since the fact that Nature decided to pay any attention at all to the Heartland Conference in Washington, D.C. which ended July 1st, this deserved a special place on WUWT, and thus the first ever “Quote of the Month” is a real doozy. However, given that Nature has chosen to mention the conference at all, I see it as a win.

It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.

No, Nature implies that the scientists that they represent are always curious about limitations, without fault, and are as pure as the driven snow, with only truth as motive. Climategate showed the world otherwise.

I do agree with Nature though on one point, the displays by some of the book sellers at the conference were spurious, and I’d much prefer that if Heartland ever does another one of these conferences, that they leave such displays out. But, it seems that whomever the reporter for Nature was, he/she didn’t venture beyond the lobby and listen to any of the presentations made as the article makes no mention of them.

The view of Nature is sharply contrasted by that of Dr. Scott Denning, who did attend the science sessions, both as participant, and speaker. He said of the conference in this article:

“I was treated with respect and even warmth despite my vehement disagreement with most of the other presenters,” Denning wrote, expressing thanks for prominent platforms he was provided during the conference, including an hour-long keynote debate with contrarian Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

…

“These were not a bunch of brain-washed idiots,” Denning said of the conferees, rebutting an impression many in the science community might have.
…
An example of “what doesn’t work” in speaking with audiences such as those at the Heartland conference, Denning wrote, “is the condescending argument from authority that presumes that the Earth’s climate is too complicated for ordinary people to understand, so that they have to trust the opinions of experts.”

Nature seems to take the position of judging all skeptics by the books being sold in the lobby, or the proverbial “judging a book by it’s cover”.

The videos of all the Heartland conference presentations are available here:

While Nature is in the business of dissing conferences, they might want to have a look at what went on at the 2010 American Geophysical Union convention in San Francisco, as Steve Mosher relates here in Craven Attention.

Read the entire article in Nature linked below. They do accept comments.

“It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own.”

I thought that scientists were supposed to be skeptical, requiring significant proof from data to accept a new hypothesis. Also, the statement seems to assume that no scientists are skeptics and also that no skeptics are scientists. This premise seems to be fundamentally incorrect.

It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.

So, why, Nature, is it that you bash those with a dissenting view? Are you by your own words coupled with the action they represent, calling yourselves non-scientists? It certainly sounds that way.

There is no doubt that the text tries to create an artificial distinction between a ‘scientist’ and a ‘skeptic’ with a ‘scientist’ being skeptical of their own views and a ‘skeptic’ being skeptical of the view of others; that is my interpretation. As scientists are inherently skeptical, I see a problem selling this distinction.

When ‘skeptical’ views are reinforced by ‘peer reviewed publications’ Nature dismisses them being sourced in ‘scientists’ ‘ own reflctive moments, not critical analysis.

The article captures very well the fact that both sides of the CAGW debate have vested interests. No doubt, and not one-sided. Well, would it not be best then for one to test and reproduce the works of the other? Perhaps share the data and code, hmmm…?

Skeptics are characterised as non-scientists which is patently untrue. Faux pas, Nature.

The claim that the gaps in ‘scientific knowledge’ picked up by skeptics are already ‘filled in’ by scientists is an example of self-serving weasling. Holy crow! A paper is written. Skeptics thrash it with solid reasoning. Another paper is written pooh-poohing the thrashing, repeating the original claims. This typically constitutes ‘gap filling’? Good grief, we have a long way to go.

I agree that Nature was pretty much forced to comment on the Heartland conference and is an admission that it is having influence, which Nature dismisses as not really scientific, but ‘political’. I guess that means the IPCC reports are not political, then, right?

Nature, next time, provide links to the heretical papers so your regular readers/subscribers can see for themselves how truly errant are these paid-for, political, unscientific skeptics. I dare you.

"It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists."

The above is absolutely correct and it considering the evidence from ‘climate science’ is that the sceptics are more scientific than the ‘scientists’.

It is heartening to see the nature journal embracing genuine and overlooked, unfashionable, scientific principles so openly. I now await for them to address the blatant failure of climate alarmist’s who have not managed to adhere the scientific method.and so have failed in achieving the ideals held in the above quote.

Bystander says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:05 am
Um – not sure that all points of view and open debate are truly embraced here. There seems to be a lot of yelling “troll” when an opposing view point is offered here.

Oh I am sure there are any number of folks on here that will “debate” you. Just ask. If nominations are open from the floor I put forth Springer. What say you?

That has to be one of the most repulsive, demeaning, condescending pieces of crap yet written. No wonder I will have nothing to do with the cretins over at “nature”. What an obtuse group, whoever wrote that, and whoever approved it for publication.

I suppose that might be the view from an ivory tower. Or a lunatic asylum. But anyone reading that article and nodding their head in agreement has, apparently, no concept of reality at all. I’d pity them, but that would be a waste of emotion.

No surprise from Nature. They are Scientific American are both owned by the same AGW pushing German corporation.

But I don’t suppose that, even though they claim scientists are their harshest critics, they were planning on this, the first and only comment so far:

“2011-07-27 02:43 AM
Report this comment #25413
Theodore Mihran said: I have been a so-called “climate skeptic” for over ten years. My background is a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and physics from Stanford University in 1950. I worked at the GE Research Lab for 43 years studying the physics of long electron beams, transistor modeling, and integrated circuit testing. I did much computer simulation, and learned from experience how one can “doctor” simulations to achieve anticipated results. My knowledge about climate stems from a careful reading of Prof. Richard Muller’s book “Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes”. My set of four videos on YouTube explain why I believe that insolation, and not carbon dioxide, is the cause of large scale global temperature changes. In these videos I use Muller’s graphs to show that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years, hence it cannot be the primary causative agent in climate change. I have investigated the case for CO2 being the cause of climate change, and cannot find any long-term simulations which suggest this ito be the case. Usually the simulations claimed to prove this are only for the past 100 years or so. They assume there is instantaneous cause and effect, which seems highly unlikely, because historically there has been an 800 year lag. If man-made CO2 does affect climate, it is completely unrelated to the off-cited correlation between CO2 and climate that is evident from the past 420,000 years of ice-core data, because in the later, CO2 clearly is the 800-year delayed result, rather than the cause of warming.”

Anthony is right about leaving out some of the more incendiary books and booksellers next time. They do create a climate of “We’re right, and those so called experts don’t know what they are talking about.” They can be pretty ignorant themselves.

Thus they create an impression that those of us who don’t think the case has adequately been made for ripping apart our manufacturing base and our culture are loonies.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the Nature reporter were intentionally creating a characterization of skeptics that is equal but opposite to the characterization we point out when we show the aggressive and snarly one-sidedness of Gavin and Joe Romm and Michael Mann. Maybe she felt it wasn’t in the interest of Nature mag to show that there are quite reasonable people who don’t at present buy the warmist view of what must be done.

Many of the people who do climate science are in fact skeptical they way they should be. But they don’t get the press. Too bad. That is partly the fault of the press, the press would rather have a hot button story that a factual one, it seems to me — you get more eyeballs when you create controversy.

The main problem with the IPCC and the Manns and Jones and Hansens of this world (and the Gavins and Joe Romms of the blogosphere) is that they are the people the media go to, and they are so unrespectful and contemptuous of opposing views that they have created an us or them atmosphere.

So when Climategate and Himalayagate and countless other “gates” expose what actually goes on, many people lose respect not just for them, but for the whole notion that climate change could actually, possibly matter. They don’t chose the “us,” they chose the “them.” We skeptics are the “them.”

One of these years, all the BS will go away — I forlornly hope — and scientists from all sides can actually communicate and exchange ideas and not be pilloried (as Judith Curry is) for doing so. Until that time, we are in a standoff. Which is great if greenhouse gases are actually no problem.

I don’t yet buy the science or the policy prescriptions of the warmists. But I don’t arrogantly say they can’t be right, either. So I look to the day we can actually sort out the science without people being denigrated if they change their view — that goes for both sides of the debate.

I think you will find that only those repeating a dogmatic style mantra (often without appropriate backup) or constantly referring to ‘concensus’ are those that are labelled as ‘trolls’. In my opinion, I consider ‘trolls’ to be those who are here (or on any blog) for self gratification/loneliness or to cause downright pigheaded disruption rather than active discussion. A proper argument/debate is a good thing, but not when one side constantly refuses to acknowledge points and repeat a mantra!
(I am reminded of Monty Python…)

“The sceptics Alarmists like to present the battlefield as science, but, as the News Feature on page 440 makes clear, the fight is, in fact, a violent collision of world views. There, fixed.
The world view of Alarmists appears to be that man is bad for the planet, but if you do everything you can to “save the planet” then you are good, and can do anything you want, even if it actually hurts people and the environment, because the ends justify the means. It is essentially a fascist world view.

“Instead, in the United States at least, they have cemented their propaganda into a broader agenda that pits conservatives of various stripes against almost any form of government regulation. ”

The author is right to a point. There definitely is some kneejerk Republicanism that does not honestly look at the science alone, but is using it more broadly for it anti-anti-pollution regulation which fit their Ayn Rand ideology that if it were not for the government, the deserved rich would get richer and maybe some of that will trickle down or something. Crackpots are on all sides but in fairness I think the crackpotism is exponentially greater on the believers’ side.

The people at Nature obviously don’t know the definition of the word “skeptic”
–noun
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic

We have many sleazy politicinas around who use the same kind of conniving spin to discredit the opponents of their many boondoggles. Funny how the same people who are perpetrating these ridiculous spending schemes are also the local AGW alarmists.

Nature is in panic mode, like our local politicians, and striking out in an attempt to regain their credibility and preserve their stature/agenda by making more and more egregious claims and pronouncements.
It’s astounding to watch them ramp up their insults as if that is the road to their salvation.
In reality they are scoundrels on a suicidal march accelerating their imminent demise.

Sorry, but I have to point out that the cAGW dispute isn’t a gentlemanly game of cricket.

Anthony correctly points out that Nature’s take on this:-

“It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.”

Is as poorly founded on factual evidence as Meltdown Mann’s Hokey Schtick.

But if the debate was about the number of spots on a salamander’s neck, I’d just shrug.

The crux of the matter is that our activist climate scientist chums, with their “gaps in their studies” and “limitations of their data”, are loudly clamouring for action NOW to spend Trillions of dollars (which we haven’t got) on ‘solutions’ (which don’t really work) to a ‘problem’ (which almost certainly doesn’t actually exist).

The direct, and indirect damage that has already been done to the economy of the developed world is hard to over-estimate. Thousands have already died. No, not climate refugees or Pacific Islanders drowning. Typically, little old ladies dying of hyperthermia because they daren’t turn up the heating. And third world kids denied clean water and reliable energy because some greenie crook insists on only providing ‘renewable’ energy.

And we’re supposed to just touch our forelocks, keep schtum about the obvious defects in the “peer reviewed” propaganda pieces and send the climate “scientists” another fistfull of grant money?

I thought that scientists were supposed to be skeptical, requiring significant proof from data to accept a new hypothesis. Also, the statement seems to assume that no scientists are skeptics and also that no skeptics are scientists. This premise seems to be fundamentally incorrect.

What you say is particularly true and bears repeating when the premise set forth by these so-called “scientists” isn’t demonstrable through observation. The truth is these people are no more “scientists” than is Al Gore. That’s the trueNature of things.

Bystander, I apologize. I have noticed this trend towards greater negativity as well. It is just growing anger and cynicism in response to those people who do come up just to cause controversy, fling insults, and leave without responding. It is better here than elsewhere, true, but it is not optimal all the same.

…which fit their Ayn Rand ideology that if it were not for the government, the deserved rich would get richer and maybe some of that will trickle down or something.

Funny, I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn and that’s not the gist of what I read. Now admittedly, some who proclaim to follow her ideology may claim what you say, but that’s not what the book says. I suggest you read it for yourself; let me know if you still stand by your statement.

Nature’s case is that its owner/publisher is obviously biased in favor of AGW. What’s the interest in play? Digging might be worthy of some time. For instance in Canada, the Globe and Mail belongs to the Thomson family which Foundation is involved with Point Carbon and whose Trustee is Sir Crispin Tickell of UNEP fame since 1992… One can easily understand no dissenting viewpoint will be presented there: it took them 2 weeks to even mention climategate!
So what’s up with Nature’s publishing group and owners?

Oh please.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools Rm 1:22
All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. Ecc1 : 8
Trust me , if the human race makes it thus far, 200 years down the line, we will still be plucking each others here for who is right or wrong…whether the skeptics have any salt or the limits of the intellectuals / scientific thesis, etc

“the scientists, …….. who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data”

Whooa! Has Stalin coughed? Isn’t this a bit of the shift in the Party line? Wasn’t it, not so long ago, the line that the science was settled and absolutely OK as a basis for building public policy? Any ‘disputing’ was necessarily from non-expert persons whose work could not have been published in peer-reviewed journals, because no peer reviewed journal would publish a paper effectively denying the Earth was round. Now we have ‘gaps’ and ‘limitations’. Does that mean the science is not settled after all, and so not an adequate basis for policy? Or are we talking about trifling squabbles within a broader consensus, which in no way prevent policy from ploughing right ahead?. Is there a Kremlinologist in the room?

“it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.”

The theory that the trace gas co2 is driving the earth’s climate/weather systems is unscientifically and hegemonously preserved by these so-called “scientists” as the only possible explanation. So putting on fake scientific airs about “admission of gaps in their studies” and “limitations in their data” is a very bad act: the studies and data are all in the service of a rediculous theory, which only stands if all competing explanations are kept out of the discussion.

Real scientists are asking if Earth’s weather and climate systems are responses to its space environment. Notice there are extremely powerful electrical weather events and auroroas on virtually all the other planets.

Um – not sure that all points of view and open debate are truly embraced here. There seems to be a lot of yelling “troll” when an opposing view point is offered here.

er…

If you troll you get called up on it.

If you post links from deltoid, skepticalscience, realclimate (or worse) as if they are a font of knowledge that we sceptics have, somehow, missed reading you may get called up on it.”

Henry… Why shouldn’t we use links from skepticalscience? The site is full of intelligent people even if they’re not overly nice.

This issue isn’t about being nice… It’s about understanding the impact humans are having on our Climate, and how fossil fuels and the Greenhouse Gas effect is damaging the future of generations to come.

Um – not sure that all points of view and open debate are truly embraced here. There seems to be a lot of yelling “troll” when an opposing view point is offered here.

That’s not been my experience.

After the spate of tornadoes in April, I asked “equal and opposite” questions both at WUWT and at Climate Progress. In each case I posited the view opposite to the prevailing one held on that blog (warmist here, sceptical there) and asked the people there for their explanation as to why that view was wrong.

On WUWT I was treated with courtesy, and the science was explained clearly and without fuss or bluster.

On Climate Progress I was first laughed at (apparently they wanted to see Joe “tear me a new one” – whatever that means) accused of being a troll, and was later abused by Romm. Apparently that is some kind of honour. One poster did take pity on me and made an attempt at an explanation, but in the end I was left with the feeling that the reason I had been attacked was that there was actually no truth in the assertions made (that the April tornados were “proof” of AGW) and that Romm/CP couldn’t face up to the fact that they were, basically, just making stuff up.

Hey, they stopped calling us ‘deniers’. What do you expect? An apology?
This is just another in the many steps of walking back from the schilling and hype that Nature, SA, and others fell into regarding the latest End Of The World that once again failed to happen.

It’s obvious the people at “Nature” either did not read any of the climategate emails, or did not comprehend what was written and implied in those emails! I was a skeptic before climategate, but those emails gave me concrete evidence that the main players in the AGW hoax did, and continue to, conspire to promote their false science and prevent dissenting science from being published.

But if we could get only 10% of scientists to become skeptics, then won’t skepticism take over? (I read something about a computer model for that, and everybody knows computer models are infallible.)

But seriously, folks, I thought scientists were supposed to be skeptical. Isn’t that how science advances, by questioning the accepted scientific view? Won’t science stop dead if we eliminate skepticism?

J:
What you describe is libertarianism not Republicanism. Republicans are just as much for government involvement as the Democrats, just in different aspects of peoples’ lives. Small “l” libertarians on the other hand believe most people will do the right thing when educated as to what is in their best interests and the government should get out of the way and let them.

“It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data — which is where sceptics get much of the mud they fling at the scientists.”

Haha, what a load of nonsense, it is even worse they we thought.

They do opposite of what the sceptics generally do, then got the cheek to say they do what the sceptics do, but say sceptics actually don’t do it. One lie at first can be easy to cover up, then lie to cover up the first lie not so easy. So have to lie to cover up that lie to cover up that lie etc. Starts getting difficult to hide the orginal lies in the first place. Then the same people pushing this lie, start forgetting some of the details about each parts of the lying, so many contradictions occur. Between all the lying threats are issued to sceptical scientists making it known about these lies. Finally Nature add another lie to cover up a previous lie and many other lies, will they be no end?

Anyone who calls himself a scientist but refuses to publish all his date and codes because people might use them to disprove his work, is not a scientist, no matter how many letters are published after his name. I’ve never heard of any sceptic withholding data, but if that is the case, then he too should be called on it. Such actions are anti-science in the extreme. But then, labelling people as either a scientist or a skeptic is not much better.

Nature’s comment is true, if you consider that none of the Hockey Team are scientists in any reasonable sense of the word. IMHO, Nature’s comment is more a statement of how things should be. Perhaps its purpose is misdirection to deflect criticism of some of the things published in Nature.

Really, though, what should we expect? Journals like Nature and Science are little more than mouthpieces of mainline science. They are like trade journals. They do Public Relations for science. As evidence, look at the amount of “fluff” in the form of editorials and science journalism that these journals now include.

In all endeavors, from science to banking, only a fraction of the respective denizens actually practice what they preach. Some disciplines are closer to the ideal than others. Climate scientists are not as biased as, say, sociologists, perhaps. People here may laugh at this, but I find people in the “professions”, the disciplines that run under strict codes of ethics to be generally quite ethical. There are exceptions of course. Yet, it isn’t codes of ethics that lead to ethical behavior in these disciplines, but rather what prompted the codes of ethics in the first place; which is, the accountability that comes from having to provide safe, functional, effective services and products on a daily basis. There is nothing similar in any of the sciences.

Whatever happened to Greg Craven anyway?
==============================================
As I recall, after much fun was had at his expense, he picked up his marbles and went home. Something about missing his family or something. I don’t think he could take the heat, so he got out of the kitchen.

I wonder if a letter to Nature with their quote “It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own. And far from quashing dissent, it is the scientists, not the sceptics, who do most to acknowledge gaps in their studies and point out the limitations of their data” plus a link to the conference videos, would get published?

It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own.

Not even close. I changed my mind, going from accepting AGW to being a skeptic. I accepted AGW at face value, because it agreed with what I thought was a likely outcome of our decades of industrial emissions. It was only when I decided out of curiosity to check out what the science was that I found out I had to change my mind.

Does that make me a scientist or a skeptic, since now I cannot be swayed by their evidence; because of contrarian peer-reviewed papers I’ve seen, I have more than a reasonable doubt in my mind – and unless that evidence to the contrary is overthrown (it will not be), they won’t get my vote.

Perhaps it is a one-way street. Scientist > skeptic is possible, but not the reverse?

Um – not sure that all points of view and open debate are truly embraced here. There seems to be a lot of yelling “troll” when an opposing view point is offered here.
###

WARNING TROLL ALERT!!!
(sorry couldn’t help it)

But seriously, I tend to use some strong language and have incurred the wrath of many others hear, but I have never been called a troll. The only comments I see that are designated as troll stuff are indeed troll stuff as signified by the use of standard troll techniques, such as diversion. This is very different from stating a minority opinion.

and while we’re at it,….. I, nor do I believe others wish to anything but clarification, so don’t take offense, but I don’t think you’re understanding and perhaps conflating two very different concepts ….. “the deserved rich would get richer and maybe some of that will trickle down or something. Crackpots….”

“Trickle down” is a derisive term for supply-side economics, a very legitimate view of economics most notably embraced by both John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

However, asserting that rich people are somehow not deserving to be rich is anathema to many. Including myself. This country needs rich people, but even if we didn’t, they are indeed fellow citizens and deserving better than the class warfare people are engaged in against them today.

Personally, I don’t think I have the drive to ever become rich. Money just doesn’t mean that much to me. However, were I to endeavor to do the work, and make it happen, I’d like to think my fellow citizens would respect the effort, congratulate me on the accomplishment and emulate what I did if it was something they felt as a worthwhile pursuit.

And truly, this nation needs more wealthy people, not less. I’ve never once seen a poor person hire anyone.

Anthony Watts wrote: “Wow. Apparently, Nature has never seen the rampant quashing of dissent that goes on at Real Climate, which we documented with data and anecdotal reports nor have they ever noted the lack of curiosity on the part of the Hockey Team when it comes to looking at a failure of statistical analysis techniques, or alternate explanations for changes in environments and natural signals, such as the recently discovered and peer reviewed paper about sheep grazing effects on tree rings being greater than that of temperature.”

Perhaps Nature don’t think Real Climate and the Hockey Team are scientists. They fit the description thrown at sceptics much better.

As ever the devil is in the detail. I am a bog standard member of the public. The climate war has led me to reading science papers on all manner of things mostly out of curiosity and my main impression of them is that they have all manner of caveats, clauses and plainly admitted gaps in knowledge. The uncertainties tend not to appear in the summary but do appear in the conclusion. They cannot have it both ways. If such scientists wish to write speculative papers that draw no concrete conclusions then they will just have to suck it up and deal with being reminded of their own writing. If they can’t find a discrete answer maybe they are asking the wrong question.

“It is scientists, not sceptics, who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own.”

I thought that scientists were supposed to be skeptical, requiring significant proof from data to accept a new hypothesis.

That is the theory. In addition, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.”

That they didn’t do this vis-a-vis CO2 strongly suggests that they do not think the claims of AGW are extraordinary. This would seem to say much about them.

And think about it, who would go into climate science? Business types? Engineer types? Ag majors? Economist types? Hardly. Perhaps some portion of Ag, but not so for the rest, IMHO. My stereotype of a climate scientist is a tree hugger, the same type that goes in for forestry and ocean sciences, one who sees himself as a defender of nature. If true (it seems so on the surface, to me, anyway), then their predilection is to accept the idea – as fundamental – that man is injuring nature. So, when they get together, the consensus BEGINS with: Man, the killers of Bambi’s mother.

Overstated? Well, anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 is itself overstated – but they don’t see it that way, do they? They accept CAGW as true as that the sky is blue on a sunny day. And since they start from that position, it is not – to them – an extraordinary claim. As such, it does not require extraordinary proofs.

They, in fact, consider a skeptical position to be extraordinary. Listen to them! Everything out of their mouths is, “You cretins! How can you POSSIBLY deny this is happening?!” Ergo, in their eyes, WE are the ones who are required to produce extraordinary proofs.

I think I’ve got this pretty straight (even if I have a simplistic view of them).

The irony is Nature thinks that only those that support AGW can call themselves ‘scientists’ in this their straight into 1984 land where valid views can only be good or double good . The very idea of ideas begin valid which run contra to AGW is simple not possible, bad is not allowed if you want to be a ‘scientists’ in natures eyes on AGW.

It is apparent that the editors at Nature Magazine have never heard of Thomas Kuhn or, heaven forbid, have read his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Kuhn was a Scientific Historian who died in 1996. There is a complete bio on Wikipedia that is worth reading. He coined the term “Paradigm Shift” for the scientific community. This term was then popularized worldwide by Joel Barker. A quote from Kuhn that accurately fits the climate change debate is “When scientists must choose from competing theories, two men fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice, may never-the-less reach different conclusions. For this reason, basically, the criteria still are not “objective” in the usual sense of the word because individual scientists reach different conclusions with the same criteria due to valuing one criteria over the other or even adding additional criteria for selfish or other subjective reasons. I am suggesting, of course, that the criteria of choice with which I begin function not as rules, which determine choice, but as values which influence it.” Perhaps the Kuhn’s quote or a copy of the book should be sent to Hansen, Gavin, Mann, Jones, etc., although that probably won’t affect any change. We should also remember that this applies to both sides of the equation.

“Why shouldn’t we use links from skepticalscience? The site is full of intelligent people even if they’re not overly nice.”

Didn’t say you couldn’t.
If a person lands here with a link from, for example, skepticalscience and expects that alone to add to, or terminate, the discussion then, maybe, someone else will jump on and claim that that person lives under a bridge. Doesn’t mean you cant.

I have lived with Internet since 300 baud modems, I have never called anyone a troll. I may have thought they were, but either gave the benefit of the doubt or let it lie.

I have noticed that with regards to climate there is a confusion between the word ‘scientist’ and the word ‘omniscient’.

It is no coincidence that Chaos Theory was developed by a meteorologist in response to his study of weather – it is the most complex of sciences because there are so many variables which can not be isolated and studied one by one in a lab.

In all other sciences there is a long period of learning, often a specialising in one small area, then with some luck you can make a difference. By contrast, in Climate Research any old background seems to qualify you to be a Climate Scientist, you don’t even need to have a degree – just be a member of the right kind of organisation. If you are a bona fide scientist of any type you are wholly qualified to be an expert on climate IF you support AGW. [If not – you know what you are – a non-person]

This is what led to the growth of this pseudo-science. In science you have to prove something beyond doubt, in this pseudo-science you can simply make something up and say every one else has to disprove it! Even if they do you can just ignore it [or be incapable of understanding it] and and still claim your ‘truth’.

A lot of these so-called climate scientists strike me as being, at best, second rate. A few come across as being real carpet-biters!

For some reason it puts me in mind of Freud’s psycho-analysis, where after an hour or so of learning the ideas, you could become an ‘expert’.

An ideology is a set of intellectual blinders that protect the wearer’s puerile fantasies from being debunked by reality.
A philosophy is an intellectual system dealing forthrightly with the real world.
Leftism is an ideology, conservatism is a philosophy.
Keynesiasm is an ideology, supply-side economics is a common-sense philosophy.
AGW is a particularly viscious ideology, one of Leftism’s main branches, bought and paid for by huge dollops of tax confiscations from the productive (NOT ‘the rich’). Its truth-blind proponents desparately flail about seeking the next lie in their unending cavalcade of BS.
None of these rent-seeking parasites has ever earned a single one of the multiple billions of dollars they rob from the productive. Their shrill screams resound ever louder, the more they are ignored by the no-longer suckered populace.
Ironically, if the Lefties hadn’t sabotaged this economy they probably wouldn’t have been begrudged the vast sums they seek to steal for their utterly mad schemes to kill prosperity and restore feudalism. Now the very world they have totally bankrupted is, ironically, too broke to heed their insane proposals.

It is interesting that research on skeptics by a pro–AGW organisation found that we were more intelligent and scientifically literate than the ‘true believers’.

I think their solution was that we should be talked to more slowly and in a clearer voice until we realised the error of our ways and accepted their wisdom and truth! The idea that intelligent scientifically literate people rejecting AGW was significant eluded them, but then, we are the intelligent ones!

“….By contrast, the Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.”
===============
“Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth’s sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won.”
Louisa May Alcott

“The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.”
HL Mencken

Let’s slow down and seek the truth.
“consensus”, greed, and scary time horizons be damned.
Is that asking too much?

And think about it, who would go into climate science? Business types? Engineer types? Ag majors? Economist types? Hardly. Perhaps some portion of Ag, but not so for the rest, IMHO. My stereotype of a climate scientist is a tree hugger, the same type that goes in for forestry and ocean sciences, one who sees himself as a defender of nature. If true (it seems so on the surface, to me, anyway), then their predilection is to accept the idea – as fundamental – that man is injuring nature. So, when they get together, the consensus BEGINS with: Man, the killers of Bambi’s mother.

Hear, hear! here’ something similar I posted here a week ago:
——-
Climate science is a branch of environmentalism, in terms of its recent recruits. It’s not as though there were lots of objective-scientist climatologists sitting around who bought into this scare. Rather, scare-mongers recruited, credentialed, and “placed” followers in influential positions.

Warmism is inculcated in its students’ texts and classrooms, and thereafter in faculty lounges, etc. It’s biased by those things (e.g., it is strongly pro-regulatory & pro-precautionary, and suffers from a messianic delusion and a finger-pointing reflex), and also by the whole fields’ prominence being dependent on there being a credible threat of catastrophe. Then there’s the bandwagon effect, the fashionable fad effect, the academia-nut effect, etc. It’s just advocacy research, dressed up in bafflegab.

Here, free for all, is a word I coined yesterday: Nonsensus!

PS: An analogy is the recruitment and indoctrination process involved in becoming an environmental reporter. Such persons are not neutral reporters. They’re red-hot enviro-loonines, or nearly so.

Very well said, Martin. This is not some sort of game. No wonder passions run high on both sides. Judith Curry’s take on it is very level-headed in discussing various ways to promote debate or discussion between the opposing views. Denning seemed to be saying, too, that discussions over dinner at the conference were insightful and engaging rather than ‘denialistic’. Promote discussion, I say – but instead, as IPCC modus operandi shows and as warmist blog censoring shows and as the difficulty in publishing skeptical papers shows, it is the warmists who quash dissent and discussion.

I’m sorry, but forgive me for being totally naive, but isn’t a healthy scepticism supposed to be at the heart of the scientific method? Science is about enquiry and investigation which necessitates a questioning mindset. A ‘real scientist’ must therefore be, to a greater or lesser extent, a sceptic.

Without scepticism there is only belief and credulousness. Without it there is no scientific enquiry, only the proclamations of a proselytising priesthood. Nature and the RealClimate folks seem to have forgotten this. Or perhaps they are blinded by the money.

As ever, the whole CAGW furore reminds me of the Piltdown Man scandal, where a desire to prove theories backing racial ‘superiority’ (In reality more likely stemming from acute racial inferiority complexes), polarised and warped the views of scientific researchers for over forty years.

in australia this week, we have had visits from CAGW sceptic, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, and former British PM and CAGW believer,Tony Blair. our Prime Minister refused to meet the former, but chose to meet the latter.

very little MSM coverage of Klaus’ views on the subject, which means he wasted his time answering questions at the National Press Club, what little coverage there was mentioned his visit was paid for by the Institute of public policy, a libertarian think tank. far more media coverage of Blair, with not a mention that his trip was being paid for by Visy, who hope to profit from the carbon (dioxide) tax/ETS. and no questions or mentions of who invited Blair or his substantial financial interests in putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions:

Markson Sparks PR: TONY BLAIR TO SPEAK IN AUSTRALASIA FOR FIRST TIME
In an exclusive speaking tour presented by Anthony Pratt and Visy, Tony Blair will visit 5 cities over 3 days: Sydney, Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
According to Anthony Pratt, Chairman and CEO of Visy, Tony Blair’s visit will be a unique opportunity to hear from one of the world’s most admired leaders. “I first met Tony Blair in 2006 and we share a common interest in finding solutions to the challenges of climate change that bring business, Government, and the environmental community together.http://www.marksonsparks.com.au/default.aspx?URL=personalities-AthletesDetails.aspx&h=133

14 July: Age: Price scheme encourages companies to come clean
But Visy will get most of the carbon permits it needs to cover its recycling and paper-making operations free in the early years of the carbon scheme.
Both operations qualify as trade-exposed industries.
Visy also hopes to win some of the $10 billion funding allocated to the new Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in projects to convert waste into clean energy…http://www.theage.com.au/national/price-scheme-encourages-companies-to-come-clean-20110713-1he4a.html

questions for Nature:
1. how come none of the AGW scientists ever put in FOIs for data?
2. how come it took Joe Romm a week to jump all over and turn upside down the CA (h/t chu) expose that former News of the World Deputy Editor, Neil Wallis, was employed by UEA to do what amounted to damage control on behalf of the CRU scientists post-Climategate?
3. how come i have only seen sceptics submitting FOIs to UEA to get to the bottom of Neil Wallis’ work on behalf of the CRU scientists?

From the macro to the micro….
I used to be an ardent supporter of local newspapers, good for sport local news and events…but just recently I noticed that the little paper in our NSW town ‘supports’ the Carbon Tax and still prints Warmist Drivel.
A copy gets delivered free twice weekly so I’ve made a laminated sign instructing the delivery person to file it in the ‘Green Rubbish’ bin!
The other day a copy got into the house somehow and onto the kitchen table. I’d had a glass of wine and my resolve was weak so I opened it up and found once more the bizarre, anti-popular stance on the tax incorporating a few nasty references to deniers/right wing blogs etc.
As I closed it in disgust, I also noticed that the ENTIRE BACK page was an advert dedicated to SOLAR HOT WATER SOLUTIONS…there was also a two page advertorial for a SOLAR ELECTRICITY FEED BACK scheme. All over the paper there were half and quarter page adverts promoting…green power…green hot-water…etc etc. Thanks to Government distortions of the electricity industry in Australia, there are grants and free money splashing around to install the new ‘low carbon’ economy, and the smart people are taking advantage of it…
I understand The Advocate is only just putting its mouth where its money is.
But it’s still banned.

The vehemence with which warmists attack skeptics, the anger, the passion with which they approach those who disagree ON TECHNICAL POINTS their beliefs, is astonishing. At a time when the warmists claim to be the majority, to have the truth on their side, these displays of aggression are undeniable displays of bravado and bluster covering up for weakness and fear.

The warmists are very much afraid that they have lost the “fight”, and, worse, that, the mainstream, Joe Public taxpaying ordinary guy is coming to think they are wrong … because, the worst fear of all, they ARE wrong.

If the warmists are right, only a few years more – five at most – will be needed to show that CAGW is a developing situation. But observations are not moving as they are “supposed” to, and they know it. The cracks are showing, and the warmists are desperate to turn everyone’s attention away while they try to fill them in and repaint.

What a wonderful bubble they must live in, Climate scientists feed the MSM and in turn the MSM feeds the cliamte scientists.

This sort of denial and blinded approach by the so called experts and there cut-and-paste friends in the meeedia can not be good for science.

Why when climate scientists play the lottery do they always assume they are going to win it? and why do nature and SciAm and others always run around declaring that the scientists have won it? check your ticket again boys you ain’t even close.

Expanding a bit on other commentators here……
What happens if or when you interview almost anyone (here in the UK at least) as they grab a trolley/basket and go into a supermarket about what they intend to buy.
You will hear all about how that person cares for the environment. You will learn how they will buy organic food (despite the extra cost), how they support British farmers and believe that ‘Fairtrade’ is a really good idea and that they’ll look out for it and buy that also. Also how they will buy lots of ‘healthy stuff’ to feed the kids and family.
A little while later and if you can catch them and if they’ll allow you, check what is actually in their shopping trolley. You will see an assemblage of the cheapest and most fat and sugar laden gloop they could possibly lay their hands on. All those high principles will (in 90%+ of cases) have been entirely blown away, replaced by a ‘cheapest is best’ principle.

Consider teachers, especially recently here in the UK.
Ask any teacher about their chosen career/vocation and what do you get? An ‘off pat’ diatribe about how lovely it is working with children, about shaping young minds, about what a privilege and responsibility it is to be an educator of the young. Then, you might compare their salaries, benefits, working conditions and future pensions against those of the private sector. Miles ahead in every case.
Lucky people eh?

So what happens when these dedicated and selfless souls are asked (as they just have been) to contribute an extra few percent of their already generous salaries to their own pension fund(s)?
They walk right out on strike. Straight off, just like that.
Stuff the children, stuff their education, stuff their parents who need time off work to look after the displaced kids and double stuffing for the parents who are the ones paying these salaries and pensions in the first place.
Stuff those self proclaimed high ideals. Its all about me me me, more more more, and money money money. UK kids learnt as much in one day than they do in their entire time(s) at school.
Right now where I am, a TV is playing in the background and the “First Division Association” of UK public servants are putting a case why they shouldn’t contribute to their own pensions. Again, ask any Public or Civil Servant why they do the job they do and you get the same response as the teacher(s) will give, I’m only doing this for ‘the good of the children, the people, the country or the planet. But when push comes to shove, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas (Thanksgiving??)

And we are constantly told what selfless souls (publically funded the lot of them) climate scientists are……………

Yes, Nature is caught in an ineluctable dilemma and trap. Splitting skeptics and scientists into non-overlapping chunks of the Venn diagram leaves them with nothing but insupportable assertions of unanimity to hold onto.

The vehemence with which warmists attack skeptics, the anger, the passion with which they approach those who disagree ON TECHNICAL POINTS their beliefs, is astonishing. At a time when the warmists claim to be the majority…

Yes, the majority, as in “One for me, zero for you, two for me, zero for you, three…”

They count “votes” by counting, “Okay, Phil Jones, you make one, Steve McIntyre, you aren’t one of us, so your vote we don’t count, and Keith, you make two, and Roy Spencer, you aren’t one of us, so you don’t count, Gavin, you make three, and Anthony, as a meteorologist of the wrong persuasion, you also don’t count…” on and on. At the end, they have a head count of X for warmists and zero for “others.”

The fact that many of these “scientists” and their journalist cohorts either espouse, or silently assent to the notion that Big Oil funds and is responsible for climate skepticism is cause for me to doubt their acumen with facts and reasoning. That creates a bias on my part which I freely admit. I shouldn’t have to point out that this bias neither disproves or proves the theory of AGW.

You see, my life experience is different. I clearly remember when I was labeled a near-crank for being anti-smoking. Everybody (it seemed) smoked! Representatives of big tobacco went before Congress to deny the link between smoking and lung cancer. Some lessons I drew from that period is that big money can buy bad science, skepticism is a valuable ally, and being called names is completely irrelevant to truth-seeking.

When scientists compare Big Oil to Big Tobacco I am baffled. I have looked at their “evidence” and it is as flimsy and shallow as an Oxburgh report. If anything the analogy is backwards re Big Climate.

It would also have helped if the science-media complex had not adopted the error-ridden and financially-conflicted Al Gore as their poster child.

Discover a source of energy that is very cheep and abundant and then we will see the good folks over at Nature become the biggest sceptics, but they seem to be ok with expensive “renewable” sources of energy.
You don’t have to be a world leading scientist to recognize an emerging pattern.
I’m very sceptical about Nature journal’s motives, remember when they proactively engaged in damaging the results of “cold fusion” in the 80’s, they were one of the largest sceptical voices and at the same time they were proponents of the more expensive “hot fusion” which after decades of funding and research it hasn’t produced a single watt of useful commercial electricity, meanwhile the underfunded Cold fusion enthusiasts are beginning to emerge with commercially viable generators and producing electricity quite well. go figure!!

In the old pre-Post-normal scientific times dictionary:
Sientist = Skeptic
In the post-normal science dictionary:
Scientist = Believer, as in faith; religion.
Skeptic = Whoever is not a blinkered believer but checks out the science for himself.

In Al jazeera there is currently an extreme-type pro-warmist blog by Steff Gaulter. Twice Itried to post a comment with a link to CERN’s Jasper Kirkby’s lecture on climate science, showing, amonst many other graphs, the perfect correlation between ocean temperature variability and solar variablity. Both posts have been censored. I tried a simple neutral post which went straight through without any “Your comment must be approved by a moderator before appearing here” pop ups. Most probably they have a filter for skeptic’s websites.
Then nature accuses skeptics of censorship. What cheek.
But i did manage to trick the censor. I first pasted a linkless comment which went through, then I ‘edited’ the comment, since DISCUS lets the commentor edit the comment. So, if the warmists think they are intelligent…….
BTW, here is Kirkby’s beautiful lecture:

AGW is not a science, or, at best, it is not a hard science.It could only become such if someone is able to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis. Such statements as “the science is settled” or “the consensus is overwhelming” are risible in the absence of the essential hypothesis. The AGW proposition is without any identified foundation and skeptics might better spend their time attacking this lack than finding fault with the minutia of a baseless proposition.

Besides the lack of an hypothesis the matter can only be examined on a statistical basis. This is inherently subject to bias error but beyond that we have rank bad data. Nobody has ever come up with a method of reaching satisfactory conclusions based on bad data. Nobody, ever.

My comment as I posted it before moderation at nature:
“A very disappointing editorial; one that calls to mind the phrase “pot calling the kettle black”, leaving this reader with the clear opinion that the author has declared themselves, by their own words , as not a scientist. Indeed, this hate piece is a rather thinly disguised attempt at shouting down opposing views with overly generalized negative stereotypes while using an editiorial forum in a formerly much respected journal.

Looking over the editorial we recognize that the author disses a conference where science was viewed, analyzed and discussed. Further, the author insists that nature is not giving any credibility to people with an opposing view, a very odd statement in a piece where there is also an insistance that scientists have an open mind. No-one would dispute that all of the presentations or displays at the conference were not of equal scientific rigor, but if we take the word of the author, there were no scientists at this conference, only lunatics. A descriptive word comes to mind regarding the author; a word often trumpeted by the entrenched climate orthodoxy and that word is denier. Nice job there, editor, throwing rocks in a glass house.

What chance is there for fair and open minded science when “nature” hosts editorials, like this, with such a negative science view? Surely “nature” will seek to broaden their future articles and editorials so that they inspire all scientists, even those with a differing view to bring forth their questions.

As a postscript; I note that “Theodore Mihran” introduces himself, identifies his credentials as a scientist and gives a brief summary of why he remains skeptical of the orthodoxy climate model centric view. Eric Steig jumps in immediately and attacks the commenter’s concern as specious, then offers a genuinely specious argument as rebuttal. Eric also manages to impugn the first commenter as one of those bad people that uses bad science, again without offering any proof. I would expect that when a Doctor of Physics questions a hypothesis, even a Doctor of Geological Sciences would recognize legitimacy and respond properly rather than to condescendingly demean the questioner. Directing people to RealClimate where more comments are deleted than kept is certainly sending them to a science desert island where discussion is not only discouraged, but actively purged when the party climate religion is not followed.J.M. Palin follows with a personal slur against “Theodore Mihran”. One thing is certain, this editorial fails to inspire scientific, political or even a “world views collision” discussion in a fair and open minded manner.”

My brief career in posting comments at nature is now over as “nature” as I think “nature” is burning those final bridges to scientists conducting legitimate science, scientists and scientific discussion. When the AGW mountain is finally identified as the anthill it really is, it will take decades to recover scientific credibility; that is, if “nature” can ever cross the chasm of science as religion back to science as questioning theories backed by definitive openly reproducible experiments.

Which “scientists” are we talking about in that Nature quote? If I might rewrite the first sentence to make it more accurate:

“It is skeptical scientists who are most willing to consider explanations that conflict with their own.”

And I would add that in the end, the only real scientists are skeptical scientists. And from experience, any scientist who hasn’t found themselves to be wrong on occasion, isn’t being honest with themselves. If one simply admits the error and moves on, no foul. Everyone understand.

I read in this the nascent beginnings of a CYA argument. Oh, we scientists were always skeptical, careful to point out the holes and uncertainty in the science. The alarmism came from the politicians and media, not us…

We know who wrote the two page Nature article that was linked to in said editorial.

We also know that the person who wrote the two page article, is one in the same person who emailed his questions to Dr. C.

However, we do not, and will not (IMHO), ever, learn the name of the person(persons) who wrote the actual editiorial itself, unless that(those) person(persons) decides(decide) to out themself(themselves).

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Actually that might have been fine for Juliet and her Romeo, but in todays spin world there’s a lot in a name. Rather than grouping as Nature did here, I think the separation should be between Alarmists and Non- Alarmists.